[ExI] Is Transhumanism Coercive?

[Anders Sandberg]

Kelly Anderson wrote:
> First off, let me say that I really enjoyed reading your post
> Anders... very well thought out. Makes me proud to be an Anderson...
>   
:-)


> So we have two kinds of "coercion", the soft coercion of the
> marketplace, the Darwinian survival pressures, and the hard coercion
> of government. So how governments respond to transhumanism is likely
> to be where most of the hard coercion comes from... and the
> marketplace will place it's own subtle pressures on people to conform
> to the new zeitgeist of tomorrow's technology.
>   

Don't forget the cultural and social pressure. How often do you do 
things because it is what is expected of people in your role? (whether 
that role is student, rebel, male, Newfoundlander, ...) A lot of these 
behaviors are induced by our surrounding culture. And there is a 
tremendous amount of feedback going on that deeply affects our behavior:

Right now a lot of new foreign students have come to Oxford. They do not 
understand the subtle rules of British queues. So they misbehave (in the 
eyes of us locals) and get subtle feedback - frowns, averted eyes, 
bodies turned slightly so that elbows point in their direction. Within a 
few months they will behave like the rest of us do in the queues.

Transhumanism will become part of this system of culture and social 
pressure if it becomes mainstream. What kind of enhancement school do 
you go for? How do you live up to the informal norms of proper 
enhancement behavior?


> The real question in my mind is whether the Amish
> will be able to continue their lifestyle... or will they be perceived
> at some future point as not worth the bother...

And this is why one should care about property rights and similar 
things. If the primordial slime owns shares in the higher intelligence 
it will tend to treat the slime well if property rights are preserved.

The Amish are unlikely to be in trouble since they have a sufficiently 
protected niche within the US society cooperative core: rights are 
mutually recognized, there is enough feedback to handle changes in the 
surrounding social matrix. There are no doubt limits to how isolated a 
group can be and still enjoy proper protection, but the Amish show that 
they can be pretty wide.


>> The problem is when people both want to stay outside the
>> mainstream but do not want to pay the cost: they must then convince enough
>> of the rest that they have a moral claim to get repaid by the mainstream to
>> cover the cost of what they perceive as exclusion.
>>     
>
> Enter socialism.
I'm not sure what you mean by socialism here and onwards. It doesn't 
sound like you are referring to the economic or political system.

Note that the above demand can be made to any kind of society, for any 
reason - and might be granted for equally diverse reasons. When people 
give food to begging monks, they might do that for the rationally 
selfish reason of improving their karma.


> I'm uninterested in the government
> footing the bill. Whoever writes the checks makes the rules...
>   

That is an interesting problem with demanding compensation for being 
excluded. If you are compensated for not fitting in you become somewhat 
dependent on the rest of society (even if the compensation is 
non-monetary, like moral support). If you want to remain truly 
independent you cannot claim compensation.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute 
Oxford Martin School 
Faculty of Philosophy 
Oxford University